Iger Confirms Star Wars Domestic Parks Presence

[Gomer]

I think Revenge of the Sith gets lumped in with the crappiness of the prequels even though it doesn't deserve it. Revenge of the Sith is definitely a solid movie, but Attack of the Clones is awful.

I honestly think all of them have some redeeming qualities. Clones has one of my all time favorite John Williams scores. TPM is not all that bad if you just watch from the podrace scene to the end. But poor writing and a director who had no interest in the actors brought down the movies for the most part.

I do agree though. ROTS is the best of the prequels by far and is brought down by 3 or 4 really horrific scenes which stand out in peoples memory (Padme's hair bushing flirtations comes to mind). But,honestly overall I think its somewhat comparable in quality to Return of the Jedi, which sometimes gets a free pass for some of its own flaws because of its link to the first two, far superior, films.

 

[DisneyGentleman]

I honestly think all of them have some redeeming qualities. Clones has one of my all time favorite John Williams scores. TPM is not all that bad if you just watch from the podrace scene to the end. But poor writing and a director who had no interest in the actors brought down the movies for the most part.

I recognize that the films made money and have a substantial fan base. Nonetheless this feels like trying to reclaim the glory days of Flash Gordon. GOTG is what appeals to the kids of today. I still think the suits have to be worried.

 

[Gomer]

I recognize that the films made money and have a substantial fan base. Nonetheless this feels like trying to reclaim the glory days of Flash Gordon. GOTG is what appeals to the kids of today. I still think the suits have to be worried.

I loved GotG, but to think that its surprising success means Star Wars will fail is ridiculous. GotG did very well against its modest expectations, but it is not a huge hit on the lines of one of the mega franchises like Star Wars. Its a popular and successful movie that may or may not build a following over time.

Star Wars is, even without any current movies, still is one of the most profitable IP's in the world. There are toys in every store. Multiple popular tv shows. Harrison Ford breaking his ankle on set made national news for crying out loud. Any production with that level of attention a year and a half before release is not worrying executives as to its potential popularity. SW will be fine. GotG becoming a hit only helps that by bringing space opera back into the limelight.

 

[Mike S]

A large number of people may not be fond of the prequels, but they are no flops. To the contrary, they are still some of the most successful movies of all time, and sadly there are a large number of people who were young when those came out who prefer the prequels and think that they ARE Star Wars, not those "dated old fashioned original movies with the 70's haircuts". (For clarity, most definitely not my opinion, just a sentiment I've hear from those under 25 more often than I would like)

Point being, if Jar Jar can lead to one of the most successful films of all time, then SW is about as flop proof as they come.

This must be refreshing then. I'm 21 and prefer the old movies. Grew up watching them on video (still have them!)

 

[Cesar R M]

I think Revenge of the Sith gets lumped in with the crappiness of the prequels even though it doesn't deserve it. Revenge of the Sith is definitely a solid movie, but Attack of the Clones is awful.

Agree, all my family fell asleep during attack of the clones.
The rollercoasting of huge fights.. then to the boring "romantic" parts(I swear that Anakin is the brother of Megan fox. both cant act to save their lives)

 

[Cesar R M]

I loved GotG, but to think that its surprising success means Star Wars will fail is ridiculous. GotG did very well against its modest expectations, but it is not a huge hit on the lines of one of the mega franchises like Star Wars. Its a popular and successful movie that may or may not build a following over time.

Star Wars is, even without any current movies, still is one of the most profitable IP's in the world. There are toys in every store. Multiple popular tv shows. Harrison Ford breaking his ankle on set made national news for crying out loud. Any production with that level of attention a year and a half before release is not worrying executives as to its potential popularity. SW will be fine. GotG becoming a hit only helps that by bringing space opera back into the limelight.

Well, it is a hit considering how obscure the characters were.
Its like the surprise Star Wars (the first) when it got out.
The characters were not known well, neither the "universe" of the characters.

 

[Gomer]

Well, it is a hit considering how obscure the characters were.
Its like the surprise Star Wars (the first) when it got out.
The characters were not known well, neither the "universe" of the characters.

It's definitely a hit. But we are talking a much different scale than Star Wars. GotG was a $170m movie that people feared would flop. Instead it has exceeded the most optimistic expectations and become a solid hit for Marvel to build on. At best its another Iron Man franchise for them. At worst, a Thor. Either way, it is a huge win for Marvel that they were able to take this unknown property and make it a hit that they can turn into a sub-franchise within the Avengers family.

That all being said, it is not on the same scale as Star Wars. Star Wars was a 10m dollar movie that only opened in 60 or so theaters and then took the world by storm until it became the highest grossing movie of all time (until it was passed by ET 4 years later). Walter Cronkite had to do news stories on Star Wars mania and theaters not being able to support the amount of business that was crowding them. Star Wars helped create the summer movie season that GOTG inhabits now. It invented the current merchandise model and it invaded the pop culture consciousness for a decade. There were books and toys and Christmas specials and breakfast cereals. Star Wars was THE movie for an entire generation. To this point, GotG hasn't touched anything at that level. Its a great movie, and I'm over the moon that its doing well and bringing sci-fi/fantasy back to theaters after a long absence. But to this point, its just a hit movie, not a phenomenon. I'd like it if it became one because it has that potential. But Marvel is spread pretty thin, so I predict they will still aim everything around the Avengers with the other pieces falling in as solid film franchises to use as a build up to that event.

 

[JEANYLASER]

I can't wait for the announcement about Star Wars land next year!

 

[Gomer]

Variety has updated their interview with Iger. I have no idea what this quote means. Anyone care to take a stab at an interpretation?

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-disneyland-news-2015/
UPDATE: Variety added some more info which clarifies some of Iger’s statements and confirms the above assumption. They said that “the first look at new attractions based on the sci-fi franchise…will be revealed next year.” They also added this quote from Iger: “When we grow ‘Star Wars” presence, which we will do significantly, you will see better bets being made that will pay off for us than were made in the past.”

Is this a comment on the lack of risk involved in developing SW in the parks, or a comment on Disney own past, lackluster, exploitation of this or other valuable IP's in the parks?

Edit: Just realized the update was a couple days ago, but I didn't see it mentioned here. But if it was already discussed, I apologize.

 

[twebber55]

SW is pretty much flop proof even more so in a theme park setting because of the merchandising...the movies may be terrible (I seriously doubt it) but merchandising will still be a big winner for disney

 

[danlb_2000]

Variety has updated their interview with Iger. I have no idea what this quote means. Anyone care to take a stab at an interpretation?

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-disneyland-news-2015/
UPDATE: Variety added some more info which clarifies some of Iger’s statements and confirms the above assumption. They said that “the first look at new attractions based on the sci-fi franchise…will be revealed next year.” They also added this quote from Iger: “When we grow ‘Star Wars” presence, which we will do significantly, you will see better bets being made that will pay off for us than were made in the past.”

Is this a comment on the lack of risk involved in developing SW in the parks, or a comment on Disney own past, lackluster, exploitation of this or other valuable IP's in the parks?

Edit: Just realized the update was a couple days ago, but I didn't see it mentioned here. But if it was already discussed, I apologize.

Here is the full quote from the earnings call Q&A:

"The other thing I will add is -- and this goes back to the question that Jessica asked -- is as we
spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property
and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story's presence
or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence,
which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance -- you're going to see, I
think, basically better bets being made that pay off -- that are more likely to pay off for us than
some of the bets that were made in the past. So again, it's just a question of essentially leveraging the great collection of franchises and IP
that the company has in ways that have better returns on capital expenditures at the parks
than we saw in the past."

Not sure what he is referring to by "bets that were made in the past", but in general this sounds like what we pretty much already no, park additions for the foreseeable future are going to be mainly if not entirely IP focused.

 

[Gomer]

Here is the full quote from the earnings call Q&A:

"The other thing I will add is -- and this goes back to the question that Jessica asked -- is as we
spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property
and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story's presence
or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence,
which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance -- you're going to see, I
think, basically better bets being made that pay off -- that are more likely to pay off for us than
some of the bets that were made in the past. So again, it's just a question of essentially leveraging the great collection of franchises and IP
that the company has in ways that have better returns on capital expenditures at the parks
than we saw in the past."

Not sure what he is referring to by "bets that were made in the past", but in general this sounds like what we pretty much already no, park additions for the foreseeable future are going to be mainly if not entirely IP focused.

Thanks! Funny how much more clearly he makes that point when its in a written speech s opposed to an off the cuff interview. When put in context with the Q&A it does make much more sense.

 

[Mike S]

Here is the full quote from the earnings call Q&A:

"The other thing I will add is -- and this goes back to the question that Jessica asked -- is as we
spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property
and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story's presence
or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence,
which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance -- you're going to see, I
think, basically better bets being made that pay off -- that are more likely to pay off for us than
some of the bets that were made in the past. So again, it's just a question of essentially leveraging the great collection of franchises and IP
that the company has in ways that have better returns on capital expenditures at the parks
than we saw in the past."

Not sure what he is referring to by "bets that were made in the past", but in general this sounds like what we pretty much already no, park additions for the foreseeable future are going to be mainly if not entirely IP focused.

At this point I would accept having only rides based on IP if it meant we got them more frequently but of course that's not the case. R.I.P original ideas like Pirates and Haunted Mansion.

 

[bhg469]

i hope that means more gritty visually and less CGI polished then the later ones...

No finger sniffing chimps here! @PhotoDave219

Spoiler

I can say with 100% certainty there are as few CGI scenes as possible. The wide shots of large amounts of storm troopers will be filled with actual actors. There will be green screens for some things that would be impossible to build but you should not see anything close to episodes 1, 2, and 3.

 

[Beiste1]

Well, if they are announcing it now, I guess we will actually see it in 2020. I am happy they are actually going to be throwing a bone to poor Hollywood Studios, but it frustrates me to no end how long it takes Disney to complete projects. I hope this "new" land will have something for everyone.... and some actual RIDES.... and not those omni-trak wonders that Disney seems to love so much. I think a BIG NEW HEADLINER, in the form of some sort of Coaster is needed to balance the park, because as of right now, as you head into the park, the park is leaning dangerously to the right. It will also need something more than Jedi Training for the little Padwans---- and I'm not talking flying Jar Jar Binks, either. Personally, I would love to see them put in the Cantina from Star Wars, too. There are so many things they can draw from, if they only put in the effort. Yes, in New Fanstasyland the Mine Train seems to be a hit... but it is one fairly awesome attraction among a lot of pretty architecture and re-imagined boring rides. I have to say that after some of the recent "new and exciting" things I've seen from Disney, I'm a bit skeptical.

 

[doctornick]

I hope this "new" land will have something for everyone.... and some actual RIDES.... and not those omni-trak wonders that Disney seems to love so much.

What's wrong with omnimovers?

 

[Beiste1]

What's wrong with omnimovers?

Nothing, in moderation.... there are just way too many.... let's see... Haunted Mansion , Buzz LIghtyear, Ariel's Undersea Adventure, The LIving Seas with Nemo and friends, Spaceship Earth, ... I guess what I am getting at is there is different technology out there to have more variety.... maybe it wouldn't have stood out so much to me if Ariel's Undersea Adventure hadn't been an almost carbon copy of The LIving Seas. Yes, Omnimovers are genius at moving lines.... so maybe it isn't the fault of the omni-movers, per se.... but how they are being used and how often.

 

[Cesar R M]

in other news.. avoid TMNT, its awful..
the movie is more focused on Megan Fox's horrible "acting" than the turtles.

 

[Mike S]

in other news.. avoid TMNT, its awful..
the movie is more focused on Megan Fox's horrible "acting" than the turtles.

Wasn't planning on seeing it anyway. Thanks though.

 

[Summersfigment]

Talking to my cousin, Her and her husband are imagineers. She couldn't tell me what she was working on but she said it was a newer property and that don't think small think really big. I asked like 5th gate big.